Toledo Board of Zoning Appeals Hearing - February 9, 2026

The Toledo Board of Zoning Appeals held a hearing on February 9, 2026, to consider two variance requests. The board also approved the minutes from the December meeting. A third case was initially called but continued due to the absence of the appellant. The meeting was called to order, and a quorum was confirmed.

Initial Case Continued

• BZA case number 25-00060 (325 Whitmore Street) was initially called but no representative appeared. The board voted to continue the case to the next month (February) due to confusion about the docket. (The board noted that three cases were already scheduled for February.)

Discussion Item: 325 Whitmore Street (BZA Case 25-00060)

• Applicant/Petitioner: Douglas Williams, owner of 325 Whitmore Street, requested variances to maintain an existing six-foot privacy fence, an accessory structure (shed), and a gravel parking area in the front yard setback on a corner lot (zoned RD6). He stated the fence was already there when he bought the property five years ago and was installed for crime prevention. He noted he had been told by a city inspector (Inspector Wall) that the fence was “grandfathered,” but the board clarified that no grandfather clause exists for fences. Mr. Williams also mentioned a neighbor's complaint about the property's appearance.
• Planning Commission (Esther): The property was cited for multiple violations: three accessory structures (code allows two), one shed in the front yard, a six-foot privacy fence without a permit (replacing a compliant three-and-a-half-foot chain-link fence), and a trailer parked in the front yard. The planning commission offered a compromise: move the fence back to align with neighboring houses, pave a parking area near the existing garage, and relocate the shed closer to the house. The applicant rejected this compromise. The planning commission recommended disapproval of all variances, citing a lack of hardship and negative impact on neighborhood aesthetics.
• Supporting speakers: Billy Bartlett (325 Whitmore) and Elizabeth Henderson (Valentine Street) expressed support for keeping the fence, citing crime and no obstruction of sight lines. Henry Ola, a former resident, also saw no problem.
• Board discussion: Board members questioned the applicant and planning commission. The applicant expressed frustration over conflicting messages from city staff and the cost of modifications. The board noted that the variance criteria require a showing of hardship, which was not met.

Key Outcome: 325 Whitmore Street

• Vote on fence variance: Unanimous disapproval (6-0).
• Vote on shed variance: Unanimous disapproval (6-0).
• Vote on stone/parking variance: Unanimous disapproval (6-0).
• The board disapproved all three variances. The applicant was informed that he would receive 30 to 60 days to comply with the zoning code (e.g., reduce fence height to three and a half feet, remove or relocate structures).

Discussion Item: 2616 Glendale Avenue (BZA Case 25-0062)

• Applicant/Petitioner: Kim Harvey, owner of 2616 Glendale Avenue, requested a height variance to keep a five-foot-tall fence (instead of the required three and a half feet) on a corner lot (zoned RS6). The fence was installed to enclose an inground pool and contain her six Siberian huskies. She stated she hired a contractor who failed to pull permits and lied about doing so. The previous fence was a six-foot solid fence; she replaced it with a more open “Kentucky Blue Rail” fence with wire mesh, improving visibility. The fence is set back 77 feet from the sidewalk. Planning commission had suggested a compromise to move the fence back further, but she had not been informed of that before the hearing.
• Board discussion: The board clarified that the height variance itself could be approved if she agreed to move the front section of the fence back to align with neighboring properties, as recommended by planning commission. Ms. Harvey agreed to move the fence back, noting the cost would be much lower than replacing the entire fence. She emphasized the need for a secure enclosure for her dogs and pool safety.

Key Outcome: 2616 Glendale Avenue

• Motion: To approve the variance as amended (height kept at five feet, with the requirement that the front section of the fence be moved back to align with adjacent houses). All board members voted in favor (5-0; one member absent or abstention not specified). Approved.
• The applicant was informed she would receive 30 to 60 days to make the modification and work with the zoning department.

Approval of Minutes

• The board approved the minutes from the December meeting without amendments. Motion carried by ayes.

Adjournment

• The hearing was adjourned after the final case.